You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once. - Robert A. Heinlein -

Day by Day

Subscribe to RSS headline updates from: Powered by FeedBurner

Saturday, February 07, 2004

Got Another One For Ya, Tim

Now John Kerry's campaign is planting volunteers at his appearances in order to make him appear tougher. At a rally yesterday at which he accepted the endorsement of Maine Gov. John Baldacci, Kerry faced down a heckler in the Portland audience who called out, "Why don't you tell them about your vote on the war and the Patriot Act?"

Kerry responded that he would -- but in time. "I never run away from anything, especially George Bush," Kerry said.

The candidate seemed to be quick on his feet in the response, and his retort garnered applause. Perhaps his quick thinking was the result of knowing the jibe was coming.

According to a Kerry campaign source, the campaign has been looking to plant local volunteers in crowds to mix it up, and to make it appear their man is facing down tough questioning. "This kind of confrontation pushes him up the line in news coverage," says the staffer. "Instead of facing a tough question from a reporter, the news guys have this seeming give and take to report on."

Ah, the internet. All the news that the liberal mass media would like to keep hidden.

Well, the Massachusetts Court has decreed that same sex marriage is hunky-dory. I have a few things to say to them.

You. Stupid. Idiots.

This isn't some anti-gay screed, this is about court justices who feel that they can bypass the entire legislative process in order to appease a small portion of the population. Mrs. du Toit has a wonderful essay up on the subject, well worth reading. One part that grabbed me was this:

The Massachusetts situation is absurd. It is a bastardization of the republican process and is a clear cut example of judicial tyranny. The courts have essentially said, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the state does not have the authority to impose any limitations on who may marry. The courts have removed The People from the process. (It is my opinion that the judges who made that call should, at minimum, be impeached. Preferably, thrown into Boston Harbor with cement blocks tied to their ankles, agony and suffering beforehand is optional.) It is CLASSIC example of tyranny. It is wrong in so many respects that I have a hard time even writing about it without uncontrollable shaking and near-vomitingÂbut not because the judges did it, but because they are still ALIVE and on the bench. (I cannot begin to imagine what Sam Adams would have already arranged for them, had something like this occurred during his watch in Boston.) Where is the public rage? It should not matter what your opinion of same-sex marriage is, EVERYONE should be outraged because of HOW it was handled.

These judges have taken the decision out of the people's hands, and decided all on their lonesome that they were just going to change the law. The sheer elitist attitude of these moronic twits gives me a headache! "We know what's best, and we're going to make it so!" It's arrogance that makes you grit your teeth. And in the end, it will be more harmful to the gay-rights movement than anything else.

People can accept gradual change. But people cannot accept judgments like this being forced down their throats. The repercussions from this could be horrendous. This will be a polarizing issue, and it won't be good for the gay-rights people. This NPR poll might give you an idea of how the country feels.

The study, conducted by Republican pollster Bill McInturff and Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, found that 56 percent of respondents are opposed to gay marriage, while 30 percent support it.

56% opposed, 30% for, those aren't good numbers. And now, instead of public debate, where ideas could ebb and flow, and people could come to an understanding, those judges have handed down a ruling like so many high and mighty rulers of old. Don't think that this will sit well with that 56%. It won't. And when people have their way of life challenged without so much as a "by your leave", they counter with whatever they have. The poll also gives this assessment:

Poll respondents were split evenly at 45 percent on the idea of a law that would let homosexual couples legally form civil unions providing them "the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance, pension coverage and hospital visiting privileges."

As I said, people will accept gradual change. The gay-marriage movement should have taken small steps. Instead, they went to the courts, where this legal boondoggle was perpetrated.

Let me tell you what will happen now. A contitutional amendment will be passed, declaring "Marriage" defined as between a man and a woman. Bush flat out said that he would push for that amendment if the judges tried this crap. And no matter what you may say about Bush's policies, he does what he says he'll do. The gay-marriage group will lose ground, and they will NOT have the majority of Americans on their side. By using typical liberal tactics and trying to sidestep the legislative process, they have just made more enemies than they can count. And I'm one of them.

Working within the system to change the rules is fine. But when you go and have some unelected body hand down a new set of rules that I have to live by, you've just pissed me off. And I will fight you every step of the way.

Go here and look at the graph on the bottom. (I'd load it here, but Blogspot seems to hate it and won't accept it)

Why hate the fence? Because it stops them from killing more Jews. Look at that graph. The level of successful bombings has dropped, while more bombers are intercepted. Gee, ya think? It's amazing what you can do when you don't have to guard a huge line in the sand! And as that wall gets completed, less and less bombers are going to be able to kill little kids, and mothers taking babies for a walk. There will be less people getting blown up at Bat Mitzvahs, or at pizza restaurants.

den Beste wrote a masterful piece on the wall that is being built. But one of the best parts of it all is this:

In every way, the decision to build the wall puts time on Israel's side, where time used to be viewed as being on the side of the Palestinians. Once the wall is complete, the Israelis can withdraw their military forces from the West Bank. Part of why the Palestinian power struggle hasn't turned violent is that the Israelis have been keeping the peace. When they are gone, it will turn ugly very rapidly.

And with the wall in place, it will become far more difficult for the Palestinians to make attacks on Israel.

Worst of all, the wall de facto draws the line of demarcation for the two-state solution, and the longer that it exists without any formal agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians, the less chance there would eventually be of renegotiating the border, even if the Palestinians ultimately accepted a two-state agreement

The wall has finally laid to rest the lie that "palestinians" want their own state. They could give a shit about their own country, they just want to kill Jews. They don't care about peace, they just want to kill Jews. They don't care about life, happiness, or living together, THEY JUST WANT TO KILL JEWS! And this wall proves it, in a glaring light that only the truly stupid and blind can ignore.

If the "palestinians" want their own state, why aren't they happy to get it? This wall is one big giant border, with Israel on one side, and the "palestinians" on the other. Two states. And the "palestinians" get their own state, and their own government, and their own EVERYTHING. They should be happy! They should be pleased! But they're not. Because they never wanted their own state unless it was built on the bodies of every Jew in Israel.

This fence needs to go up, and anyone who doesn't want it can piss off. Let the "palestinians" blow each other up, let them stew in their own violence and hatred, let them kill each other off if they can't kill the Jews. I don't really care about them, they've proven themselves to be unworthy of my caring. As of right now, anything that prevents homicide bombers is a good thing.

ONE of the surest ways to get the phones ringing on any Massachusetts talk-radio show is to ask people to call in and tell their John Kerry stories. The phone lines are soon filled, and most of the stories have a common theme: our junior senator pulling rank on one of his constituents, breaking in line, demanding to pay less (or nothing) or ducking out before the bill arrives.

The tales often have one other common thread. Most end with Sen. Kerry inquiring of the lesser mortal: "Do you know who I am?"

One of the reasons that Donks like Kerry play the class warfare game so well is that they play it on a daily basis.... FROM THE TOP DOWN!

Every Tuesday night, the local politicians here that Kerry elbowed out of his way on his march to the top watch, fascinated, as he claims victory in more primaries and denounces the special interests, the "millionaires" and "the overprivileged."

"His initials are JFK," longtime state Senate President William M. Bulger used to muse on St. Patrick's Day, "Just for Kerry. He's only Irish every sixth year." And now it turns out that he's not Irish at all.

Oh, this is going to be fun if he wins the nomination. There's more dirt on him than a pig in a sty. He and his fellow idiots have been slinging mud for a year now, all of it aimed at the President. Bush has been biding his time. I'm not waiting that long. I'll have Kerry covered in the shit that he's produced so copiously faster than you can blink, and the rest of the Blogosphere is gearing up to do the same.

At the risk of engaging in ethnic stereotyping, Yankees have a reputation for, shall we say, frugality. And Kerry tosses around quarters like they were manhole covers. In 1993, for instance, living on a senator's salary of about $100,000, he managed to give a total of $135 to charity.

Yet that same year, he was somehow able to scrape together $8,600 for a brand-new, imported Italian motorcycle, a Ducati Paso 907 IE. He kept it for years, until he decided to run for president, at which time he traded it in for a Harley-Davidson like the one he rode onto "The Tonight Show" set a couple of months ago as Jay Leno applauded his fellow Bay Stater.

Of course, in 1993 he was between his first and second heiresses - a time he now calls "the wandering years," although an equally apt description might be "the freeloading years."

Holy Hell, even I give more than $135 to charity a year, and I'm sure not making one-hundred grand! Dear god, the man is a greedy tightwad who marries rich widows! Fire for Effect!

For some of the time, he was, for all practical purposes, homeless. His friends allowed him into a real-estate deal in which he flipped a condo for quick resale, netting a $21,000 profit on a cash investment of exactly nothing. For months he rode around in a new car supplied by a shady local Buick dealer. When the dealer's ties to a congressman who was later indicted for racketeering were exposed, Kerry quickly explained that the non-payment was a mere oversight, and wrote out a check.

Nice to see he's not above padding his own pockets illegally, so long as he doesn't pay for it afterwards. "OOPS! You mean I have to PAY for this shiny new car? I can't just keep it for free? Oh, well, let me write a check then! It's all one big misunderstanding!" Yeah, right.

In the Senate, his record of his constituent services has been lackluster, and most of his colleagues, despite their public support, are hard-pressed to list an accomplishment. Just last fall, a Boston TV reporter ambushed three congressmen with the question, name something John Kerry has accomplished in Congress. After a few nervous giggles, two could think of nothing, and a third mentioned a baseball field, and then misidentified Kerry as "Sen. Kennedy."

So he's a rich elitist, a snob, a veteran slanderer, an all around asshole, and yet he really hasn't done jack shit in his own state!

Bob Wojnowski of the Detroit News has a great column about the NHL today. It's a column that hasn't been written about nearly enough. The NHL is in serious trouble. The dumbfucks in charge of the league keep denying it, and so does the Disney family of networks, who keeps on funding it with lucrative TV contracts, but the league is really in trouble. The lack of scoring is destroying this sport, and nothing is being done about it. According to the article, the NHL lost a whopping $300 Million last season. I'm not at all surprised -- I wonder how much money ABC and ESPN have lost paying to broadcast it.

I grew up watching stars like Wayne Gretzky, Mike Bossy, and Mario Lemieux. These stars have now completely disappeared from the game, and all we are left with is variations of the Neutral Zone Crap. Potential superstars like Teemu Selanne and Alex Mogilny, both of whom topped 70 goals one year, now are happy to get 30. At most, maybe one guy a year tops 100 points. It's unthinkable to try and imagine how bad other sports would be if they followed this trend. Imagine if the NFL only had one 1,000-yard rusher every year. Imagine if nobody hit 40 homers in baseball anymore, or if football couldn't produce a 3,000-yard passer. Imagine if every NFL game ended 10-7 or 14-0, with all of the scoring coming on a punt block or fumble recovery for a touchdown. That should give you an idea of the level of shittitude that the NHL has reached.

Hockey used to have so much more character too. When the league cracked down on fighting, they allowed the game to get more dirty. 20 years ago, if you injured the other team's star player, you risked getting the living shit beat out of you by the other team's goon, or even worse, you risked getting your own star player injured. We never used to see so many guys injured on hits from behind like we do nowadays. Teams used to have so much variety in styles. Some were offensive juggernauts (i.e. The Oilers and Penguins), and others were scrappy defensive teams (i.e. The Bruins and Canadiens). Watching two contrasting teams like this play added so much drama to the game. You would want to watch to see who's style would win that night. Low scoring games are exciting when the low scoring actually represents some kind of accomplishment. Low scoring games are not exciting when every game is low scoring, because the two teams are playing Neutral Zone Crap and Dump And Chase all night long. That's the way that it is nowadays.

The worst moment in the history of the sport happened in 1995, when the New Joisey Devils won the Stanely Cup by defeating the star-laden Red Wings. Ever since then, other teams have mimicked their shit defensive style, and now scoring has dropped 6.29 goals per game to 5.04 goals per game -- in less than a decade! The playoffs have deteriorated just as bad. Last year the Western Conference finals pitted the Minnesota Wild against the Anaheim Mighty Ducks for Christ's sake. Did anyone actually watch? I didn't. I didn't even watch the finals either. The other time that I didn't watch the finals was in 1999, when the Dallas Stars played the Buffalo Sabres *yawn*

The league needs to do at least three things to change the game, and return it to where it used to be:

1. Make a rule that forbids goalies from playing the puck behind the end red line. Goaltenders have become too adept at playing the puck and passing, and that's why so many defensive strategies succeed by clutching and grabbing attackers in the neutral zone. Goalies playing the puck on a dump in adds nothing whatsoever of value to the game. It's about as much fun as watching a fumbled snap in football. Make goalies stay in the crease, and make forechecking a viable part of the offense again.

2. Make all of the goalie's equipment smaller. You say scoring is down just because the goalies are better? I say bullshit. If you don't believe me, then watch a game on ESPN Classic, and look at the equipment that those goaltenders used to wear. Those guys are still armored like tanks, despite the tiny changes in the rules this year.

3. Most importantly of all, get rid of that worthless pile of dogshit Gary Bettman. Gary Bettman is nothing but a pimple on the ass of this league. He is as useless as a used condom. The NHL needs someone who will address the league's problems seriously, not some moronic asshole fuckstick who smiles and denies that they exist. No other major sport has a dumbfuck like this at the helm. Remember about 10 years ago when the NFL tweaked pass interference rules to address a drop in scoring? That's an example of smart leadership, something that the NHL, tragically, has not had. No commissioner in the history of professional sports has seen his league go to shit as fast as Bettman.

Fox News has a section each week called "Tongue Tied", where they chronicle some of the more blatant acts of PC abuse. But this week had me chuckling for a little bit. The NAACP got upset over a celebrity slave auction (proceeds to go to downtown revitalization in Leesburg, FL). Much moral outrage, ect., ect.

The thought just crossed my mind... what the hell would the NAACP do about the BDSM community?

George Tenet and his top brass are getting ready for the investigation that the Bush Administration is setting up. I doubt that Tenet is going to just fade away; he's been in Washington a long time, and knows how to play the game. If he's dismissed, it's going to be a long, drawn out, bloody messy battle. But something has to change.

We have the greatest military in the world, but that is hobbled if they don't have the best intel in the world.

Ronald Reagan turns 93 today. I could wax poetic about everything he did in his eight years in the White House, but there are those around the web who can do it much better than I. I just wanted to express my personal thanks to the man who helped restore America to greatness.

Thursday, February 05, 2004

WASHINGTON - A Senate colleague was trying to close a loophole that allowed a major insurer to divert millions of federal dollars from the nation's most expensive construction project. John Kerry stepped in and blocked the legislation

Over the next two years, the insurer, American International Group, paid Kerry's way on a trip to Vermont and donated at least $30,000 to a tax-exempt group Kerry used to set up his presidential campaign. Company executives donated $18,000 to his Senate and presidential campaigns.

Hmmmmmm..... how about "John Kerry: Special Intrest Whore"?

But to some government watchdogs, the tale of the Massachusetts senator's 2000 intervention, detailed in documents obtained by The Associated Press, is a textbook case of the special interest politicking that Kerry rails against on the presidential trail.

"The idea that Kerry has not helped or benefited from a specific special interest, which he has said, is utterly absurd," said Charles Lewis, head of the Center for Public Integrity that just published a book on political donations to the presidential candidates.

"Anyone who gets millions of dollars over time, and thousands of dollars from specific donors, knows there's a symbiotic relationship. He needs the donors' money. The donors need favors. Welcome to Washington. That is how it works."

The documents obtained by AP provide a window into Kerry's involvement in a two-decade-old highway and tunnel construction project in his home state of Massachusetts. Known as the "Big Dig," it had become infamous for its multibillion dollar cost overruns

I'll say it once, and I'll say it again. Anyone who thinks the Democrats wouldn't double the amount spent by President Bush upon election should have some sense slapped into them.

During the 1990s, Sens. Kerry and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., helped win new federal funding for the project as its costs skyrocketed and threatened to burden the state's government. In 1998, Kerry was credited with winning $100 million in new federal funding.

Translation: Kerry helped get buttloads of cash from the Feds.

But in 1999, the Transportation Department uncovered a financing scheme in which the project had overpaid $129.8 million to AIG for worker compensation and liability insurance that wasn't needed, then had allowed the insurer to keep the money in a trust and invest it in the market. The government alleged AIG kept about half of the profits it made from the investments, providing the other half to the project.

Outraged by the revelations, McCain submitted legislation that would have stripped $150 million from the Big Dig and banned the practice of allowing an insurer to invest and profit from excessive premiums paid with government money.

"Any refunds of insurance premiums or reserve amounts, including interest, that exceed a project's liabilities shall be immediately returned to the federal government," McCain's legislation declared.

But Kerry and Kennedy intervened, and McCain withdrew the legislation in 2000 in favor of the hearing

I see a problem looming here.

At that hearing, the Transportation's Department inspector general made a renewed plea for a permanent federal policy banning the overpayment of insurance premiums and subsequent investment for profit — what McCain had proposed and Kerry helped kill.

You can't penalize them! They give me MONEY!

Ah, I love the smell of corrupt politician in the morning! It smells like..... Victory!

Update: A commenter at Bill Quick's site gives us this link about Kerry. It seems that the military can't trust him even today. As usual, all emphasis is mine.

- Running For Senate In 1984, Kerry Called For Cancellation Of At Least 27 Weapons Systems And Reductions In 18 Other Systems. Kerry recommended cancellation of 27 weapons systems including the B1 bomber, the cruise missile, MX missile, Trident submarine, Patriot air defense missile, F15 fighter plane, Sparrow missile, stealth bomber and Pershing II missile. He recommended reductions in 18 other systems including the joint tactical air system, the Bradley fighting vehicle, the M1 Abrams tank and the F16 fighter plane.?

- Upon Entering Senate, Kerry's First Floor Speech Was In Opposition To Critical Missile Program And He Introduced Comprehensive Nuclear Freeze Bill. Kerry introduced: a bill to provide for a comprehensive bilateral and verifiable freeze between the United States and the Soviet Union on the testing, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons systems. The bill had no co-sponsors, and never made it to the Senate floor for a vote.

- Weapons Kerry Sought To Phase Out Were Vital In Iraq. Kerry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might, the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks.

- Kerry Voted Against At Least Eleven Military Pay Increases.

- As Senator, Kerry Also Pushed To Cut Intelligence Funding By More Than $2.58 Billion."

Gee Kerry, why didn't our intel people find out more about Saddam? Maybe because YOU CUT THEM OFF AT THEIR FINANCIAL KNEES?

Oh, this is going to be a fun election. The one Democrat with any hope of winning has dropped out, and any of the other Dimmy Donks is going to be open season for the rest of the Blogosphere.

Wednesday, February 04, 2004

The '59 Buick converted into a boat and headed to Florida Keys with 11 Cuban migrants onboard has been sunk by the U.S. Coast Guard and those onboard will be taken back to Cuba, according to an exile activist in Key West.

How much more do people need to do in order to get into the USA? Hell, Bush seems poised to give any asshole who swims across the Rio Grande a free pass, but these poor people running from a brutal communist dictatorship can't get a break? What the hell is up with that?!

Relatives said there were six adults and five children in the Buick, including Marciel Basanta L?pez and Luis Gras Rodr?guez -- two of the people who fled Cuba in the truck in July -- and their wives and children. They said the group left Cuba around 8 p.m. Monday

Dammit, these people obviously have SKILLS! If they can turn a car into a boat, I'd love to see what else they can make. More to the point, WE SHOULD NOT BE HANDING OVER ANYONE TO A COMMUNIST DICTATOR! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR SHIT-FILLED, TWITTERPATED, ROCK HARD SKULLS!

Ten million Mexicans are going to be given amnesty, why the hell are we treating refugees from Cuba this way?

So Saddam didn't have WMD. Conversely, Colonel Gaddafi did. And hands up anyone who knew he did until he announced he was chucking it in. The only way you can be absolutely certain your intelligence about a dictator's weapons is accurate is when you look out the window and see a big mushroom cloud over Birmingham. More to the point, it's in alliances of convenience between the dictatorships and freelance groups that the true horrors lie - and for that you don't need big stockpiles, just a vial or two of this or that. You can try and stop it day by day at the gate at Heathrow, but, even if you succeed, you'll bankrupt the world's airlines.

The effects of taking out Saddam will be felt long after Iraq is a functioning democracy, I guarantee. And just as importantly, the rest of the world now knows that when America is threatened or bloodied, it will respond. Well..... as long as a Republican is in the White House. The Democrats will just sell us out to the UN again.

The Left is remarkably nonchalant about these new terrors. When nuclear weapons were an elite club of five relatively sane world powers, the Left was convinced the planet was about to go ka-boom any minute, and the handful of us who survived would be walking in a nuclear winter wonderland. Now anyone with a few thousand bucks and an unlisted number in Islamabad in his Rolodex can get a nuke, and the Left couldn't care less.

They seemingly can make nukes, or get whatever else they want. But according to the Democrats, we should convene with the UN before we deal with a threat to us.

Yeah, right. Enjoy this next election, you on the Left. I'll be the one eating popcorn and watching the Democrat Party plunge off that cliff.

I can't say I blame the guy. Disrespected by your own party, backstabbed by your former running mate, and disregarded by your previous allies, the guy had little chance of winning anything after today.

Congradulations, Democrats. You've eliminated the ONE candidate that many Republicans might have voted for. You've tossed aside the ONE candidate that didn't have huge gaping flaws exposed to the world. You've swept aside the ONE candidate that could have won the election.

So now that we've dispensed with the pretense of the Left being rational, let's get down and dirty! Kerry seems to be the clear front runner, but I wonder how much this site might hurt him. It seems 'ol John was snuggling up to Hanoi Jane after the war, and lying his ass off about what went on in Viet Nam. Yeah Jonny, that'll get you the Veteran vote!

Kerry hasn't had one half of the attention that Dean had from the Right. Now that he's in the lead, get ready to watch his numbers sink like a stone. Or better yet, let me put it this way:

Any nominee who's endorsed by Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy has a snowball's chance in hell of beating Bush.

Andrew Sullivan posts part of an email sent to him. I aghree with it completely. Hence I repost it here.

I am as conservative as can be. Not a paleo, not a neo, but bedrock social and fiscal conservative Catholic. I read your piece and numerous other wailing articles about Bush's non-conservatism and have the following comments:

GWB is not Reagan. He did not campaign on the "goverment isn't the solution, it's the problem" platform. He did, however, campaign on his ability to form bi-partisan agreements to address problems. He stressed this over and over in 2000. He also said he would get a Medicare drug benefit passed (which congress had been jaw-boning for 15 years), address illegal immigration with a no-amnesty worker program, appoint constitutionalist judges, push for a ban on partial birth abortion, not pass additional gun restrictions, allow faith based groups to be eligible for federal funds, hold Saddam and other rogues accountable, pursue missile defenses, modernize NASA, restore dignified behavior to the White House, require testing for students, and have across the board tax cuts.

On each and every one of these issues, he has either achieved legislation or is currently working towards the stated goal. Considering he inherited a tanking stock market, corporate scandals, Clinton's phony economic forecasts, and a recession; its a damn miracle that he was able to stick to his agenda as well as he has. Many conservatives are bitching and moaning about some of the legislation, some of the compromises, and lack of spending control; and some criticism is definitely warranted. But one cannot bitch about the agenda, since he laid it out on the table as clear as day when campaigning.

What you see is what you get with President Bush. You may not like what you see. Raging Dave doesn't like the expansion of spending. I don't like the whole Defense of Marriage charade. I suspect that Ari is very uncomfortable with the Patriot Act. That putz Misha over at NiceDoggie is constantly whining about Bush's policy on Israel.

But what you see is what you get. John Kerry is ahead of President Bush in many polls. Conservatives, in my opinion, need to recognize that what they are getting is far superior to what they'll get with Kerry, and climb back aboard the Bush Train before next January comes and one of the most badly flawed Senators ever is sworn in as President.

The time to complain about the lack of Conservative ideals in the White House will come in 2007 when it is time to select the next GOP nominee not named Dubya.

Tuesday, February 03, 2004

Following the trip, al Khafaji contributed $5,000 to McDermott's Legal Defense Fund. The Weekly Standard has contacted McDermott's office about returning the contribution. McDermott spokesman Mike Decesare said this morning that he had not yet spoken with McDermott, since it's three hours earlier on the West Coast. Asked about the contribution and the subsequent allegations about al Khafaji and oil, Decesare said, "I don't know anything about it."

How about E) All of the above. The more I find about about that spineless communist, the more I hate his black twisted soul. McDermott should be hung from a lamp post and his body left to rot. I doubt even the crows would want to peck away at anything so foul.

The list can be found here. The Weekly Standard article can be found here. And the blog that pointed the way to me can be found here.

On McDermott's way to hell, I hope the ghosts of Saddam's victims torture him endlessly.

That's a pretty serious question, isn't it? Can you imagine a child having to wonder just who their father is? And can you imagine paying child support for a kid that's not yours?

Can you imagine the state not really giving a damn if the child is yours or not? As usual, all emphasis is mine.

Tony Pierce remembers vividly the exact moment in November 2000 when the state of California began trampling on his life. "There was a loud angry pounding at my door at five o'clock in the morning," he recalls. "Very scary."

It was a female police officer with a complaint accusing him of being the father of an 8-year-old girl in Contra Costa County, east of San Francisco. "I'm like, "Great! I'm definitely not the father of anybody," he says.

There were excellent reasons to think so. He had never met or heard of the mother of the child. He had never lived in Northern California, and at the time of conception (spring 1991) he was attending the University of California at Santa Barbara, beginning a monogamous relationship that would last for two years. What's more, he's a condom fanatic -- only once in his life, Pierce swears, has he failed to use a rubber during intercourse, and that was "many years after." (He's been a friend of mine for 15 years, and I believe him.) And if the summons had included the mother's testimony (it was supposed to, but did not), he would have seen himself described as a "tall" and "dark" black man named "Anthony Pierce." Pierce is a hair over five feet, nine inches; he is so light-skinned that even people who know him sometimes don't realize he's black; and no one calls him Anthony except his mom.

Step back and take a look at that situation. Just think about that. A name, a description, and people are banging on your door, saying "You're daddy!". And this from a woman he supposedly met nine years ago! In an area of the country he was not in at the time! Oh, and by the way, THE MOTHER'S TESTIMONY WASN'T EVEN INCLUDED! Just a name and a vague description.

The front page of the court document gave simple but misleading instructions: "You have 30 days to respond to this lawsuit. You may respond in one of two ways: 1. File an Answer to the complaint with the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, not with the District Attorney....2. Settle the case with the District Attorney. You may call us at (925) 313-4200 to discuss your case." Concluding incorrectly (but understandably) that he could settle the matter over the phone, Pierce called -- three times that day -- and tried to weave his way through a labyrinthine phone tree. Finally he found a human being, who instructed him to leave a message with a home phone number. The department called him back the next day and left a message; it took another three calls from Pierce before he reached a caseworker for the first time.

"I said, What do I need to do? I'm not the father," he remembers. "And they were like, OK, well this is what you do: You just call in every day, and then we'll understand that you're not it, because if you're it, you're not gonna call us every day."

Pierce did everything he was told over the next three weeks of phone tag, except for comprehending that the 30-day deadline for denying paternity in writing was etched in federal law, regardless of what he discussed with Contra Costa employees -- who he says never once told him the clock was ticking. "All they were doing was delaying me from doing what I needed to do," he says. "It's a huge scam -- huge scam....They're just counting the days. They're like, Sucker, sucker, sucker, sucker. ...And this is the government!"

Ah, yes, the efficiency and compassion of Uncle Sam. I don't think I need to say any more. They got their sucker, and now they're gonna bleed him dry.

Two months later, after the phone conversations had ended and he assumed he was off the hook, Pierce received notice that a "default judgment" had been entered against him, and that he owed $9,000 in child support. He was between dot-com jobs, and his next unemployment check was 25 percent smaller; the state of California had seized and diverted $100 toward his first payment. Suddenly, he was facing several years of automatic wage garnishment, and the shame of being forced to explain to prospective employers why the government considered him a deadbeat dad. "That's when it hit me," he says. "I mean, it's mostly my fault -- Fill out the form, dumb-ass! ...But it's so rigged against you, it's ridiculous."

No DNA test. No paternity test. Just some woman's word that a guy who kinda/maybe/sorta looks like him is daddy. Are you scared yet?

What Pierce didn't realize, and what nearly 10 million American men have discovered to their chagrin since the welfare reform legislation of 1996, is that when the government accuses you of fathering a child, no matter how flimsy the evidence, you are one month away from having your life wrecked. Federal law gives a man just 30 days to file a written challenge; if he doesn't, he is presumed guilty. And once that steamroller of justice starts rolling, dozens of statutory lubricants help make it extremely difficult, and prohibitively expensive, to stop -- even, in most cases, if there's conclusive DNA proof that the man is not the child's father.

(......)

Here?s how it works: When an accused "obligor" fails, for whatever reason, to send his response on time, the court automatically issues a "default judgment" declaring him the legal father. It does not matter if he was on vacation, was confused, or (as often happens) didn't even receive the summons, or if he simply treated the complaint's deadlines with the same lack of urgency people routinely exhibit toward jury duty summonses -- he's now the dad. "In California, you don't even have to have proof of service of the summons!" says Rod Wright, a recently retired Democratic state senator from Los Angeles who tried and failed to get several paternity-related reform bills, including a proof-of-service requirement, past former Gov. Gray Davis? veto. "They only are obligated to send it to the last known address."

No, not only do they not need proof that you're the father, they don't even need to let you know that you're being nailed. Not you? Too bad. DNA proves it's not you? Too bad. You either jump through hoops, dance like a monkey, and pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to try to clear your name, or you pay child support for YEARS!

Start talking to guys who have been divorced and are paying child support. You'll find hundreds of horror stories, many of them the same. "She got everything, I got the bills." I could tell you stories from my MP days that would scare you silly. Husbands going on deployment, coming home six months later to find some guy in his bed, his wife gave her new boyfriend the car keys, and the kids are at grandma's. Oh, by the way, here are divorce papers, and I get half of your retirement. Yep. Just bend over and take it. One Staff Sergeant in my company refused to re-enlist, because he didn't want to retire and have half of his pay go to his now ex-wife, who was on boyfriend number four at that time.

The "Deadbeat Dad" wave is a scam, a hoax inflicted by the government in order to get more money from guys who've already gone through hell. As a wise man once said, "Follow the Money." He wasn't kidding.

The bottom-line results have been impressive: Since 1993, according to Senate testimony last March by Marilyn Ray Smith, director of the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, child support collection nationwide jumped from $8.9 billion in 1993 to $19 billion in 2001, while paternity establishments more than doubled, from 659,000 in 1994 to 1.6 million just five years later

Nineteen. Billion. Dollars. How much of that is coming from men who aren't the father? More to the point, much of that money goes through the beurocratic system before it reaches it's destination. Did you know that in Washington, you don't pay child support to the parent, you pay it to the state? Yep. You have to cut the state a check, and then the state pays the parent. And oh, by the way, for every payment there's a $25.00 fee.

According to this 1994 survey, there were 241,845 single parents in the Puget Sound area. Let's say that only 150,000 actually recieved child support. That's a rediculously low number, but it's easy to work with.

150,000 X $25.00 = $3,750,000. That's right, folks, Can you say THREE AND THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH?! Going DIRECTLY into the state's wallet! That's $45,000,000 per YEAR! And it's ALL taken directly from the person who has to pay child support!

Is your blood boiling yet? Is it any wonder why men are getting screwed on this? There's money to be made! To hell with any kind of evidence, they want the cash!

Ad to this the small minority of women who pop out babies like some sort of human vending machine, the "All men are rapists" philosophy found predominately in the Leftist Feminist movement, the monumental amount of incompetance found in the government, and you have all the makings of a massive fraud campaign directly aimed at men. This is something that men should be screaming mad about. Just think back ten years. Were you sexually active? What if one of your partners decided that you would be able to pay more child support than the actual father? What could you do to prevent being taken to the cleaners?

The state doesn't need your DNA. They don't even need your current address. All they need is a vague description, and some woman's accusation that you're the father. And you have to pay. And pay. And pay.

So think about that question again. You might hear it sometime, from some kid you've never seen. "Are you my daddy?"

Monday, February 02, 2004

I Don't Give A Damn

About Janet Jackson's pierced boob, and where she flashed it. Wait, check that, I do care where she flashed it, when it's on the screens of half of America while they try to watch their big game. It was nasty. It was crude. And it was without any kind of class at all. But what gets to me is that everyone is shrieking about Janet's boob. Folks, I don't care what it looked like, that was NOT Janet's boob.

Think about it, folks. The Jacksons have had so much plastic surgery as a frigging family, that they practically give each other new heads for Christmas. Do you really think that what you saw was Janet's real, original boob?

Yeah, right. Her face has a warning label on it regarding proximity to microwave ovens and melt risk. Her boobs are the SAME DAMN WAY. I'd put money on it. Fake as a three dollar bill. More silicone that that valley in California. Fakes. Frauds. Phony.

Would you like to know where my viceral hatred of Clinton comes from? Go watch the movie.

And while you're watching that movie, keep one fact in mind: The Rules of Engagement (ROE) were set by Clinton and his administration. The rules stating that we could not fire first, even if we saw an enemy target with a weapon.

Those rules changed over time, due to the commanders finally getting sick of their troops being shot at. But the ROE changed on an almost daily basis. Soldiers were getting shafted. Bottom line.

Other people may just disagree with Clinton's policies. But his policies got my fellow soldiers killed.

Dead. Shot. Gutted. Killed. Those deaths can be laid at Clinton's feet, because for all practical purposes, HE set the ROE. And US soldiers paid for it with their lives. That is one massive way that Bush differs from Clinton. Clinton laid out an objective, and then dictated the way that it should be accomplished. Bush lays out an objective, and then tells the Generals "You have your mission. Get it done". End of story.

For all of Bush's faults (and they are many), that is just one reason that I'll be voting for him.

This has probably been around the net for a little while, but according to a newsletter that I read, it seems that Sears is voluntarily paying the salaries and maintaining all benefits, including medical insurance and bonus programs for all their reservist employees called to active duty.

I couldn't find a mention of it on the Sears website, and there was no reference info in the newsletter. Can anyone give me a heads up if it's true or not? I don't know how much of an impact I can have, but it'll at least let me know where to buy my next pair of jeans.

Imagine, if you will, a young man with many accomplishments to his name. College educated. HeÂs a member of Mensa. He interned with a US senator. He was a Rhodes Scholar candidate. Now imagine that this man wants to give back to his community by teaching.

This should make you happy, right? I mean, here's someone who could give those kids a whole new world. Expose them to things that they might have never seen. This person should be making the School Board cry tears of joy! A brilliant, educated, successful young man who wants to teach! Schools would be grabbing at him like he was made of $100.00 bills, right?

Would you like to know what this young man was told? As usual, all emphasis is mine.

Recently, I interviewed with a school in one of the metro Atlanta counties, only to receive an e-mail from the principal stating, "Though your qualifications are quite impressive, I regret to inform you that we have selected another candidate. It was felt that your demeanor and therefore presence in the classroom would serve as an unrealistic expectation as to what high school students could strive to achieve or become. However, it is highly recommended that you seek employment at the collegiate level; there your intellectual comportment would be greatly appreciated. Good luck."

So in short, teaching young black kids that they can be whatever they want to be, and do whatever they aspire to, is a bad thing in Atlanta. No, the people there want to tell those kids that they CANNOT be what they want to be. They should just shut up and drink the kool-aid.

I've screamed about the educational establishment in this country for a while. Other's have as well, although with much better clarityy than I. This is one more straw on the camel's back. How much longer are we going to pay for mediocrity? How much longer will we allow our kids to sit in some dank festering hole, learning nothing? How much longer are we going to keep this farce running?